EPTThe Philosophy of Design: Part 2 - Unit Design - Page 13
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Tosho
Australia498 Posts
| ||
|
Nudelfisk
Sweden104 Posts
On January 12 2012 14:27 Carmine wrote: I disagree with OP mostly. Examples cited take things to extremes and fail to make coherent points sometimes. Sure the chess game with all pawns is more boring than regular chess, and sure the chess game with the Juggernaut is more boring than regular chess, but there ARE pawns in chess and there ARE queens in chess. That is the nature of things. Just like there are roaches and colossi. Not being able to retreat is frustrating, but Sentries and Marauders aren't the only cases of this. They may be important mentions because these units have special abilities that remove the retreat ability, but other units have traits that make retreat impossible. Most of the time when a Terran pushes out against Zerg, he knows that his push must do damage because it isn't coming back home (thinking zerglings here). When doing drops against a Zerg, often they are one-way because the way mutalisks control the skies. I also disagree about the phoenix. It's ability to move and shoot is different but gives it unique ability to kite units normally unkitable. I agree on some things like the removal of the thor being a good thing, and about seige tanks being too weak, and space control in general being too weak. Agreed, exactly my thoughts. Anyway, I get the feeling blizz went for something different in Sc2; it's still centered around picking good engagements and army composition but they removed some of the more dynamic area control units to allow for a faster gameplay. Yes we see a lot of rushes but that just means people will have to prepare more and that there are more ways of winning. There is also the "pre-battle"-micro that some people have already mentioned that is so important in Sc2. One one hand, you complain about positioning and that it is less important, yet on the other you complain about the units that actually contribute to forcing positioning - sentries, banelings, tanks, roaches, infestors etc. Like, there's no way you can meet a protoss army head-on as zerg; you either have to do some crazy flank (positionally) or avoid it completely unless you're way ahead. Why? Because of colossus and sentries as well as blink micro. You can't stack your marines into a ball (something you complain about) against infestor play because they will all just get fungaled which takes micro from both sides. In ZvZ you can't just a-move your roaches into the other zerg player b/c he will have a better concave and/or static defense which is actually very good. Same thing goes vs terran; try a-moving into a terran siege line with almost anything and you will die. Arguably the siege tank could be seen as a bad unit according to your logic because it takes less micro to set them up compared to the zerg/other terran player having to break them. You have to be really decisive against siege tanks or you will lose. You have to really choose where you want the battle, much like against colossus. Do you see where this comparison fails? Someone just setting up siege tanks randomly and not microing his otherunits will undoubtedly lose vs any competent player, much like someone a-moving his colossus and his other units into some random location. I get the feeling you haven't watched many pro games and are mostly basing this off of your own experience. Also, killing the colossus is not very hard, actually. It's easy; just get some corruptors or vikings. The difficulty is how many vikings or corruptors should you get? If you get too many you will just have a bunch of useless supply and the toss army will walk you over. This also adds something to the game even if it isn't micro. Micro is arguably "just" one dimension in the game. And just mentioning the negative aspects of something is never good. I'd much rather see some contrast; this is what they did well and what you want more of. It makes it easier to interpret what you mean with good design. Now it just looks like you want BW 2.0 or, alternatively, that this is a balance whine. | ||
|
Garmer
1286 Posts
I wonder how it would be SC2 with one only gas, like broodwar.. | ||
|
Meta
United States6228 Posts
I want blizzard to fix these things because I just don't see myself watching this game in 10 years. I was watching brood war 10 years ago and I still watch proleague at least once a week, that game just did something right. I'd hate to lose interest in SC2 over 1-dimensionality of units. Particularly protoss units, I feel like the dynamic between zerg and terran is just right. | ||
|
Sated
England4983 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On January 12 2012 19:49 Garmer wrote: there is also a Minerals/gas ratio problem, that no one seems to have noticed, marine are overpowered because of this, u have much more minerals than gas so u build more the units that require only minerals, obviously I wonder how it would be SC2 with one only gas, like broodwar.. lololololololololololololololololol... I'm sorry, but please think at least once before posting such a thing. Just think about things like: gas mined per worker, minerals mined per worker, amount of workers per base, mules, amount of larva zerg has in SC2/BW, chronoboost blablablabla and then post this again... | ||
|
Apolo
Portugal1259 Posts
Apart from that i wholeheartedly agree with all the micro points raised. Not only more microable units can better differentiate the skill level in players, but it makes SC2 more of a show to watch. I can imagine there being many specific micro units, and some players focusing on some, and doing amazing things with them. It would be a blast to watch. But for instance, back in beta there already was a huge topic about how phoenix auto shoot was bad and blizz kept it anyway. I would doubt this would change anything at all. The only advice they listen to are imba comments posted on battle.net forums by bronze - plat, or very serious imbalanced units that cause troubles in pro games, they don't really like to be told how make their game. Closed minded people that's what they are. | ||
|
Talic_Zealot
688 Posts
But still, positioning and precision do come into play. Whether the 10 year old strong nostalgia is doing it or something else, it makes it less fun in some cases. | ||
|
firehand101
Australia3152 Posts
| ||
|
Garmer
1286 Posts
On January 12 2012 20:01 Big J wrote: lololololololololololololololololol... I'm sorry, but please think at least once before posting such a thing. Just think about things like: gas mined per worker, minerals mined per worker, amount of workers per base, mules, amount of larva zerg has in SC2/BW, chronoboost blablablabla and then post this again... you can't deny that in sc2 the minerals are far more high than broodwar, and in game i have always more minerals than gas, that is due to the tree mechanic(chrono, queen larva and especially mule) i know, but is still bad in broodwar, mineral/gas ratio is perfect, and therefore it's possible to produce more late tech units, instead on making always rines(all tvx now are about this units, really boring to watch) | ||
|
Gummy
United States2180 Posts
3hatch lurker-based PvZ, which is basically standard, relies on the fragility of protoss detection that allows Zerg to stay alive long enough for its economy to kick in. Whether the zerg can keep observers at bay is what determines the outcome of the game in these situations. Zone control: 2 tanks behind a wall-in was "absolute defense" for an expansion in TvP. With repair, those two siege tanks could almost always hold a position until reinforcements arrived. Ground-based expansion sniping was essentially impossible in PvT (while Carrier play focused around it). This point is a bit overstated though, imo, since Protoss never really had a unit that could exert zone control in any of its matchups (no the reaver doesn't count since it was only ever used in static defense in PvZ behind cannons or with a shuttle). In the PvT matchup, with proper positioning, tanks trumped everything on the ground. The metagame evolved around this paradigm, with Protoss expanding offensively so as to force base trades where Terran always wanted to force an engagement. Also, the argument that roaches roaches are anti-micro is applicable to dragoons in BW. They're just a beefy all-around good unit to have that work best in reasonable numbers with a-move (with minor adjustments for position). Also, hydras in SC2 are much tankier (relative to the aoe they are matched up against) than their SC2 counterparts (bw storms 1shotted hydras). They're just slow and roaches are so much tankier. | ||
|
zul
Germany5427 Posts
Something I want to add is the absurdly high DPS. I think it`s bad design if a player turtles on 2 or 3 base, just to max out a 200 supply army, while his opponent expands and is on 4 or 5 base and if the turteling player moves out to kill the opponents army, he just pushes the mainbase and ends the game, because there is no way the reinforcements arrive in time. It should be more like this: win a battle - move a bit forward - win another battle - move a bit forward(maybe secure another expand) ... and so on. | ||
|
Bagi
Germany6799 Posts
On January 12 2012 14:27 Carmine wrote: Not being able to retreat is frustrating, but Sentries and Marauders aren't the only cases of this. They may be important mentions because these units have special abilities that remove the retreat ability, but other units have traits that make retreat impossible. Most of the time when a Terran pushes out against Zerg, he knows that his push must do damage because it isn't coming back home (thinking zerglings here). When doing drops against a Zerg, often they are one-way because the way mutalisks control the skies. This is the same thing I always think of when people complain about abilities that "don't allow micro". There are countless situations in the game where you are using unit comp X against unit comp Y and you cannot micro your way out of it or retreat simply because the other guy has a more mobile army. Also its not like there is no way to avoid these abilities. A part of being a good player is knowing how to deal with these abilities: keeping track of the protoss sentry count and trying to make him waste some, spreading your army against fungals, avoiding engagement with marauders unless its a favorable position. These abilities actually bring a lot of depth to the game, which people are quick to dismiss just because...Brood war didn't have them I guess? | ||
|
Ragoo
Germany2773 Posts
 No zone control units are a big big problem indeed, forces so much death balling and ruins many cool map designs.As a mapmaker I'm looking forward to your analysis of maps. | ||
|
Apolo
Portugal1259 Posts
On January 12 2012 20:37 zul wrote: while I disagree with the "complain" about Tanks, cuz they are simply the best unit in SC2 to hold ground and protect zones, I feel absolutly the same regarding forcefields and Collosus. Maybe it wouldn`t even be enough to give FF armor and HP, but to remove it and strengthen the zealot and/or the stalker to be able to defend early aggression. Something I want to add is the absurdly high DPS. I think it`s bad design if a player turtles on 2 or 3 base, just to max out a 200 supply army, while his opponent expands and is on 4 or 5 base and if the turteling player moves out to kill the opponents army, he just pushes the mainbase and ends the game, because there is no way the reinforcements arrive in time. It should be more like this: win a battle - move a bit forward - win another battle - move a bit forward(maybe secure another expand) ... and so on. Blizz wants games to be fast (15-20mins) so casual players have more urge to play. The only way our wishes would be satisfied is if it was only possible for top players to use some units and strategy so well only their games would last longer. Otherwise i wouldn't expect any patch from blizzard to make anything other than - quoting blizz employees - "cool units that fit in the game". | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On January 12 2012 20:19 Garmer wrote: you can't deny that in sc2 the minerals are far more high than broodwar, and in game i have always more minerals than gas, that is due to the tree mechanic(chrono, queen larva and especially mule) i know, but is still bad in broodwar, mineral/gas ratio is perfect, and therefore it's possible to produce more late tech units, instead on making always rines(all tvx now are about this units, really boring to watch) well, maybe because the METAGAME of SC2 allows for far better economy? maybe in broodwar a mineral heavy METAGAME would have developed, if mass marines would have been actually controlable as well as in SC2? if you go for a ~1-1.5 workers per mineral patch + maximum gas saturation in SC2, your composition will look completly different. (something that zergs are sometimes doing in SC2 with bases that only mine gas etc...) Also saying that "the ratio is perfect" is just such an ignorant statement. Perfect for what? Perfect for the broodwar compositions YOU like! In no other way perfect. | ||
|
Sueco
Sweden283 Posts
I agree with almost every single one of your points. This is the stuff that we've all been thinking since beta. Lets hope someone at Blizzard reads it and wakes the duck up. | ||
|
Cortza
South Africa328 Posts
On January 12 2012 20:54 Apolo wrote: Blizz wants games to be fast (15-20mins) so casual players have more urge to play. The only way our wishes would be satisfied is if it was only possible for top players to use some units and strategy so well only their games would last longer. Otherwise i wouldn't expect any patch from blizzard to make anything other than - quoting blizz employees - "cool units that fit in the game". Blizzard has the hard task of making units cool and well-designed. To take the OP's example of the roach, they could have kept the regen aspect of the design in, making the roach still an all-round cool unit on the face of things, but giving it depth. | ||
|
Garmer
1286 Posts
On January 12 2012 21:05 Big J wrote: well, maybe because the METAGAME of SC2 allows for far better economy? maybe in broodwar a mineral heavy METAGAME would have developed, if mass marines would have been actually controlable as well as in SC2? if you go for a ~1-1.5 workers per mineral patch + maximum gas saturation in SC2, your composition will look completly different. (something that zergs are sometimes doing in SC2 with bases that only mine gas etc...) Also saying that "the ratio is perfect" is just such an ignorant statement. Perfect for what? Perfect for the broodwar compositions YOU like! In no other way perfect. even if BW had a better path, u can't do mass rine like in starcraft 2, simple because mech doesn't suck in BW, and with more gas at te start, you can go for double starport or other thing like that. in bw is perfect because you have always enough gas, to make your strategy, in sc2 open wih mech sucks because of this and the + 25 to the tank the reason why they decide to put two gas, is still beyond me | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On January 12 2012 21:42 Garmer wrote: even if BW had a better path, u can't do mass rine like in starcraft 2, simple because mech doesn't suck in BW, and with more gas at te start, you can go for double starport or other thing like that. in bw is perfect because you have always enough gas, to make your strategy, in sc2 open wih mech sucks because of this and the + 25 to the tank the reason why they decide to put two gas, is still beyond me what??? you cant go marines because mech is good? WTF??? Seriously, you have to give me something better than that. Just because another strategy would work as well, doesnt mean that we would not see marine strategies more often... seriously... so you have always enough gas for everything in broodwar? Since when? My one base BC/tank of lacks gas. My vultureless Goliath/Tank composition has excess minerals, my only marine 2base attack has excess gas. Builds are made around which ressources you have/interact with when you take ressouces. And some builds are simply not viable due to this, in BW as well as in SC2. The builds in BW and SC2 are composed after the amount of gas. It's not like you would go for those compositions anyways... | ||
| ||
